Support This Website! Shop Here!

Wednesday, May 13, 2015

Is The TLM Destroying The Faith?

Pew Research has come out with its latest numbers on the state of the Catholic Faith (and other faiths) in the United States. The numbers are not pretty (they also may not be reliable: see here). Catholics have dropped three full percentage points between 2007 and 2014.

Now, some websites have attributed this failure to "FrancisChurch" and the "erroneous" doctrine promoted by John Paul II's New Evangelization. But, there is another way to look at this data.

After all, Summorum Pontificum, the letter which made clear that priests were free to use the Roman Missal to celebrate Mass, was released in July, 2007 and became effective on the Triumph of the Cross, September 14, 2007. So, the Pew numbers are actually tailor-made to take a quick look at how well the Traditional Latin Mass has helped bring people into the Church.

This is especially true given that not every area of the country lost Catholics. Two states, Indiana and North Carolina, experienced no net change in Catholic population (highlighted in yellow in the chart below). Five states, Alabama, Arkansas, South Carolina, New Mexico and Washington, actually had net gains in Catholic population percentages since 2007 (highlighted in green in the chart below).

So, if the TLM was changing hearts and minds, if it was bringing people to the Faith or to deeper Faith, we would expect to see states with high numbers of TLM parishes experiencing a renewal of Faith, while those states with few or no TLM parishes experiencing net losses in Catholic population percentages.

Sadly, the Pew data doesn't break down the Catholic population changes on a diocesan level, but merely on a state level. Still, that should be granular enough to show at least some effect. I used a popular TLM website to determine how many TLM parishes were in each state. The site indicated that some of the parishes listed no longer offered the TLM, but did not indicate in what year the TLM ended.

As a result, I used the most conservative measure I could to favor the TLM parishes - even if a parish discontinued the use of the TLM (and many did), I counted it as being active during the full seven-year period of this study.

Why? Well, due to the inherently attractive nature of the TLM, I assumed no TLM parish would have shut down due to lack of interest. Undoubtedly, the bishops who shut down the TLM Mass offerings in these parishes did so only because they couldn't stand the tremendous competition the TLM parishes offered to the spiritually inferior Novus Ordo Mass. Besides, the TLM is so powerful that even a little of that marvelous Tridentine grace should go a long way, right? Thus, we can safely assume that if the TLM was offered in the diocese for even a short time, that glow would continue to reverberate through the diocese for a while after (whether SSPX parishes have this effect would constitute a separate study).

So, that having been said, let's look at the numbers. The 2007, 2014 and Change columns are expressed in percentages, the # of TLM Parishes/State is the raw number of parishes offering the Latin Mass in each state.

The correlation coefficient at the end of each section is a number between 0 and 1 (or -1) that expresses the effect the TLM has on the state.

A positive number indicates the presence of the TLM correlates with more people being attracted to the Catholic Faith in the region, a negative number indicates the presence of the TLM correlates with people being driven away from the Faith in that region. The bigger the number, the bigger the effect. Negative numbers are given in red.

Region

2007

2014

Change

# TLM/State

# of TLM Ended

% TLM ended

Illinois

Midwest

32

28

-4

25

3

12

Indiana

Midwest

18

18

0

9

2

22

Iowa

Midwest

25

18

-7

7

0

0

Kansas

Midwest

23

18

-5

7

0

0

Michigan

Midwest

23

18

-5

22

1

5

Minnesota

Midwest

28

22

-6

18

1

6

Missouri

Midwest

18

16

-2

10

1

10

Nebraska

Midwest

31

23

-8

3

0

0

North Dakota

Midwest

na

26

na

3

1

33

Ohio

Midwest

21

18

-3

14

0

0

South Dakota

Midwest

na

22

na

5

0

0

Wisconsin

Midwest

29

25

-4

20

1

5

MIDWEST

MIDWEST

24

21

-3

143

10

7

Midwest Correlation
coefficient (r): 0.16469292081087

TLM Close
Correlation coefficient (r): 0.76024687859368

Connecticut

Northeast

43

33

-10

12

1

8

Maine

Northeast

29

21

-8

2

0

0

Massachusetts

Northeast

43

34

-9

20

4

20

New Hampshire

Northeast

29

26

-3

5

0

0

New Jersey

Northeast

42

34

-8

18

1

6

New York

Northeast

39

31

-8

38

4

11

Pennsylvania

Northeast

29

24

-5

28

5

18

Rhode Island

Northeast

na

42

na

6

1

17

Vermont

Northeast

na

22

na

2

1

50

NORTHEAST

NORTHEAST

37

30

-7

131

17

13

Northeast
Correlation coefficient (r): -0.12370036292696

TLM Close
Correlation coefficient (r): -0.23331413131435

Maryland

South

19

15

-4

5

1

20

Delaware

South

na

22

na

3

0

0

Alabama

South

6

7

1

4

0

0

Arkansas

South

5

8

3

6

0

0

DC

South

na

20

na

1

0

0

Florida

South

26

21

-5

19

1

5

Georgia

South

12

9

-3

3

0

0

Kentucky

South

14

10

-4

7

0

0

Louisiana

South

28

26

-2

17

2

12

Mississippi

South

9

4

-5

1

1

100

North Carolina

South

9

9

0

12

1

8

Oklahoma

South

12

8

-4

4

0

0

South Carolina

South

8

10

2

5

2

40

Tennessee

South

7

6

-1

8

0

0

Texas

South

24

23

-1

24

1

4

Virginia

South

14

12

-2

19

0

0

West Virginia

South

7

6

-1

6

1

17

SOUTH

SOUTH

16

15

-1

144

10

7

Southern Correlation
coefficient (r): -0.033749189489198

TLM Close
Correlation coefficient (r): -0.23177400592773

Alaska

West

14

16

2

3

0

0

Arizona

West

25

21

-4

7

0

0

California

West

31

28

-3

55

8

15

Colorado

West

19

16

-3

6

0

0

Hawaii

West

22

20

-2

3

0

0

Idaho

West

18

10

-8

1

0

0

Montana

West

23

17

-6

2

0

0

Nevada

West

27

25

-2

3

0

0

New Mexico

West

26

34

8

4

1

25

Oregon

West

14

12

-2

6

0

0

Utah

West

10

5

-5

2

0

0

Washington

West

16

17

1

11

0

0

Wyoming

West

na

14

na

3

0

0

WEST

WEST

25

23

-2

106

9

8

Western Correlation
coefficient (r): -0.014625385914181

TLM Close
Correlation coefficient (r): 0.6335175425702

TOTAL US

TOTAL US

24

21

-3

Total Correlation
coefficient (r): -0.20800323012833

TLM Close
Correlation coefficient (r): 0.064769205954515

Results

Well, that's rather disappointing, isn't it? Only the Midwest region showed the TLM having a positive impact. In every other region, the TLM actually seems to correlate to a negative impact on the Catholic Faith. For the nation as a whole, the use of the TLM is associated with the loss of Catholic Faith.

The correspondence is actually worse than the numbers indicate because New Mexico has an outlier condition which is not reflected in the chart. New Mexico is home to the Las Cruces diocese, which had absolutely no TLM recorded as being offered in the diocese at all. That's right - one-third of the state was apparently completely lacking in Latin Masses during the survey period. Yet that same state experienced an 8 percentage point increase in Catholic population, the largest increase in the nation.

Similarly, North Dakota's Bismarck diocese had nothing in it, and Mississippi's only diocese closed down the only Traditional Latin Mass it had. We don't have a 2007 for North Dakota, so we don't know how that closure affected the state's Catholics, but Mississippi experienced a 5% loss in that seven year interval. Was Mississippi's loss due to the opening or the closing of the TLM Mass?

Well, again, look at the correlation coefficients.

In the Midwest, closing a TLM parish actually increased the probability that the percentage of Catholics would increase, and by quite a large margin. 0.76 is a great correlation.

In the Northeast, opening TLM parishes dropped the Faith, but closing the TLM parish dropped it twice as much. This is the only area that shows withdrawing the TLM as having a worse effect than making it available.

In the South, the opening a TLM parish was bad, but closing it was seven times worse.
In the West, opening a TLM parish dropped the percentage of Catholics, whileclosing the TLM parishes actually increased the probability that Catholics would retain their Faith.

For the nation as a whole, there is very little positive or negative effect created by closing a TLM parish.

UPDATE:
I did a similar analysis of SSPX parishes which tends to confirm the effects found with the TLM parishes. Interestingly, from a national perspective, the existence or absence of an SSPX parish has essentially no effect on overall Catholic identity - an absence that would be expected, given that the dioceses are likely to at least report somewhat favorably on a TLM in communion with the local bishop, but would remain totally silent about TLMs not offered in communion with the bishop.

I don't know if it can be concluded that the TLM is a positive or negative influence on the Faith. There are many reasons a parish would close, not the least of which is the local Bishop doesn't want it there. But, I never thought the TLM would bring more non-Catholics into the Faith. I always thought of it as an alternative to the Novus Ordo for current Catholics. I would think it would be more attractive to current Catholics who are not happy with the way the Novus Ordo is celebrated and so they switch to a TLM parish. That would not be a net gain or loss in Catholic population. I think it is a stretch to think a non-Catholic who has had no experience with ritualized liturgy would be attracted to the TLM. There are many people who think it is an either/or for the TLM and the Novus Ordo. I don't feel that way. I can appreciate the positives for both, when they are both celebrated correctly. I think the reason we are losing Catholics is poor catechesis and leadership within the Church. A watered down Catholicism is not attractive to anyone, but then neither is a rigid and judgmental one. And, some of the TLM people I know fall into the latter category.

They say that figures are like slaves, one can always beat the truth out of them.

And seeing as we are beating...

Here is something to consider. Benedict ascended to the Petrine throne in 2005 and the Summorum Pontificum was promolgated in 2007. Therefore, the first year that Benedict/SP could influence vocations would be the 2006/2007 academic year. Given that the average priest takes 7 to 8 years to produce, this would mean that this year we can see if there is a Benedict/SP effect.

And guess what? There is a whopping 24% increase in ordinations.

Summa summarum, it is more important for the Church to produce priests since priests evangelize, while no priests equal death.

The kind of death that those progressive mainline protestant denominations are experiencing who took a bigger hit than the Catholic Church did during the same sample period.

As with the whole American Church at one point, New Mexico is on a significantly porous Catholic border. The rise or fall of self-reported numbers of Catholics likely has little or nothing to do with the presence or absence of Traditional Latin Masses in the area.

Or, if you like, you could assume that those dioceses in which the TLM is offered are more ecclesiastically conservative (notice how I didn't say orthodox; please do not pretend I did) dioceses, with higher concentrations of faithful who are sensitive to whatever vaguely liberal intimations "FrancisChurch" is thought to represent. In which case, sad as it might be to contemplate, the decline in Catholics in those areas during the Franciscan pontificate may well be exactly what you have set out to prove it isn't: a reaction to Pope Francis.

On the other hand, the question of what renewal looks like is an interesting one as well. You introduced simultaneously _two_ criteria for measuring this, 1) more people to 2) deeper faith. The second is actually unobservable.

However, as familiar as I am working in the humdrum of on-the-street Catholicism (I am a full time employee of a large Archdiocese), orthodoxy is hardly a prerequisite for self-reported Catholicism.

At the same time, Catholics are inherently traditional creatures who gravitate towards whatever they think is normal. In the past 50 years (well, really 112 years), we have, liturgically at least, systematically eviscerated any commonly-held idea of normalcy or propriety. What anyone thinks is normal, or right, is anyone else's guess, and their reaction to it unpredictable. So, when the bishop tells people whose grandparents would blush at the idea of holding hands during Mass that they are no longer permitted to do so during the Our Father, in return to rubric and ancient custom, they may paint him in dark tones and, resenting his authoritarian ways. But some small number of people in that same place, silently pressured into that gesture against their will, may nonetheless be consoled. And the aggregate, neither resenting nor leaving, may warm up to the new-old way after time.

In fine, these numbers are meaningless both in terms of measuring (in the long term) the alleged effects of the TLM on attendance, and fervency is immeasurable. From my own standpoint, which is not rigorist, the TLM communities, the more solidly they are integrated into normal Catholic life, will help restore a much-needed and long-lost sense of rootedness and normalcy that transcends recent innovation and personal whim, which will hopefully bring about a greater sense of stability in Catholic life. Also, having English Masses and TLMs that get along means we all get to grow in charity and respect legitimate variety.

This is all nothing more than a massive Post Bull Hockey Ergo Propter Bull Hockey fallacy. It would never occur to someone with a sensus catholicus that the Church's rare and neglected liturgical treasures are to blame for the decades-old dying of the U.S. Catholic Church that has accelerated in the past few years. It's blasphemous even to suggest such a thing.

Now, you know full well that correlation does not prove causation -- you've said it many times yourself. Yet you still knowingly churn out horse hockey like this.

I don't see this as having ANY value as the questions that arise point out so many WRONG assumptions and leaves far too many unanswered questions. Lets begin:1. The number of TLM churches doesn't mean they converted all those people. So drilling down to determine which parishes converted how many people (numbers the Church has) would actually answer the question. 2. #1 would tell us the numbers for both types of masses. Therefore, a comparison could actually be made. Rather than a one0sided comparison with great data that doesn't distinguish source. This reminds me of the sex research of Kinsey. How many men have had sex outside marriage was interpreted as infidelity in marriage. Except he never broke apart those men who had sex before marriage from those who had sex while married. A rather important distinction that would and did make the data tell us the absolute wrong thing. Bad decisions come from bad data.

So before anyone takes an angle, I think both masses are great. I made the mistake of being fascinated by this question and was disappointed in the data gathering and analytical methods as they reach questionable conclusions.

The correlations are not significant. For TLM closing in the Midwest, the coefficient of correlation (r) is actually 0.50 when you drop the N/A states, having a coefficient of determination (r^2) of 0.25: TLM closing explains 25% of the variation. (r) for TLM closing in the West is due entirely to California, an outlier. Neither of these results support the conclusion. The greatest coefficient of determination for TLM parishes or TLM parishes closing as a predictor of Catholic exodus is 0.05, explaining 5% of the variation. Notwithstanding the survey error drowns most of the affiliation changes by state.